Orthodox Catholics venerate and pray to the Theotokos. Unlike Rome, however, we do not hold with “immaculate conception”. We also get rather nervous about this whole “co-redemtrix” and “mediatrix” thing that Rome seems to be brewing at the moment, too.
There is more to Christianity than “Roman Catholic” and “Protestant”.
Does sola scriptura have “Biblical basis”? That is, what part of the Bible does it say that one is only permitted to use the Bible for the purpose of doctrine? Likewise, before we can even do that, we must first definitively fix what is and is not in the Bible. So, if we use sola scriptura (which you insist upon, since you keep going back to “Biblical basis”), then we must first discover where in the Bible it states what books of the Bible are in the Bible. That way we can be sure that the book that states that only the Bible can be used for doctrine is actually in the Bible.
Does that truly work in this case? Do language differences, along with cultural differences mean nothing when reading a story in ancient times?
Would younger brothers give advice to Jesus, telling him what he should and shouldn’t do in that era in that culture? Would they show that much disrespect for an older brother? (Jn 7)(Mk 3)
Would Jesus, on the event of his death, have his mother taken care of by a non-relative? Would he not entrust Mary’s own children to take care of them? Was that not the way it occured in those times? (Jn 19)
The meaning of the word in what language? You are presuming there is a direct translation in the words spoken here in this verse. There is no direct equivelent in Hebrew or Aramaic that translates. Of course, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know (having read most of your posts on religious matters).
Genesis 14:14
Genesis 11:26-28
Genesis 29:15
1 Chron 23:21-22
Deuteronomy 23:7
1 Kings 9:13
These verses, among others, all use the word brother. Greek, as you know, has a word for cousin as well. Yet when they clearly mean cousin (such as in 1 Chron 23:21-22) they still use the word for brother. Those who translated into Greek did the same as the translators for the Septuagint, they used the broader term of adelphos instead of anepsios.
Then there is the Protoevangelium of James, dated at the same time as some of the books contained in the Bible itself. Do you discount this totally, and if so, why?
Wasn’t this argued before Helvidius? I mean Diogenes 
It works in my reading of the Greek. Adelphos really is pretty analogous to “brother” in its range and nuance of meaning.
Who says Jesus had to be the oldest? The Nativity stories are a fairly late tradition and are basically purely mythological in nature. I see no reason why Jesus had to be a firstborn.
Even if he was, I think it’s entirely possible that his younger siblings may have taken a more authoritarian or even disrespectful tone towards him if they believed that he was insane, as is hinted at by Mark. I also don’t think it would have been as big a deal in general as you suggest to offer advice or criticism. The Oldest brother had some legal and cultural priority but that doesn’t mean that his younger brothers had to be uncritical serfs.
Who says it was a non-relative. The Gospel says only that it was the “Disciple who Jesus loved.” It does not say who it was. It is traditionally believed that this was John but the Gospel doesn’t explicitly say that. It could have been one of his brothers, Judas the “Twin” for example (AKA Thomas).
Another possibility is the the “Beloved Disciple” was very young. Mark speaks of a “youth” who followed Jesus. Perhaps Jesus was not so much entrusting Mary to the care of the BD as he was entrusting the BD to the care of Mary.
There is even that crazy Merovingian theory that the BD was actually Mary Magdalene, not only that but maybe she was his wife (the Gospels do not explicitly say that Jesus was unmarried). If that was the case, then entrusting his mother to the care of his wife would not be that unusual.
I would also argue that the passage in question is probably not very historical anyway. John is the last gospel written and the most fictionalized.
The meaning in Greek. The source in the passage I quoted is Q, which was composed in Greek. There is no way to know what the original Aramaic words were but the reading in Greek would strongly indicate the primary meaning of adelphoi if read without any knowledge of a doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
I assume you’re talking about Hebrew which I know very little about. My Oxford Annotated Bible uses the term “kindred” which i am assuming is a translation of a Hebrew word for “brother.” I’m not qualified to comment on Hebrew but I do know something about Greek and the passage I quoted reads in Greek pretty much as I characterized it in English.
The Protoevangelium is a 2nd century apocryphal work which is regarded as completely spurious and fanciful by most scholarship, including the RCC.
Wasn’t this argued before Helvidius? I mean Diogenes **
[/QUOTE]
Many times, Jerome…I mean Thunderbug.
Quotes by Diogenes
Yet you want to argue about things not having biblical support. With such a low regard for the validity of much of the gospels, why bother?
You posture many possibilites and could have beens. However, it has been a commonly held belief that Mary was a virgin from cradle to grave for most of the history of Christianity. Why change now?
If Hebrew has no word for cousins or step-brother and previous translations used word “brother” even for people who are clearly cousins, why would translators at that time verge from traditional translation methods?
Cite? Only because I’ve seen it used by Origen in commentaries on Mathew.
Fair enough. I think the Nativities are only relevant to this discussion in that they claim Jesus was a firstborn son. As i said before, I don’t think being the oldest would have meant that he could not have been subjected to scrutiny or criticism by younger siblings…especially if his sanity was in question.
I’m just talking about what is Biblically supported. The perpetual virginity of Mary is a sectarian position, not an explicitly scriptural one. I have no dog in any fight about its validity as an extra-Biblical tradition. Essentially, my intent was to defend JerseyDiamond’s contention that the New Testament does not require such a presumption and that there is no scriptural conflict in taking the references to Jesus’ siblings at face value.
An attempt to preserve some sort of accuracy? Or maybe they didn’t consider it necessary since a non-literal meaning of the term was obvious from context…unlike Matthew and Mark.
Well, I based that on an entry in Catholic Encyclopedia which described it as “fanciful and puerile” but I can see from further googling that it seems to be commonly used by some Catholics to support the doctrine of PV.
I’ll just say that I dismiss it outright because of its late date and because of its clearly fantastic nature. The fact that it uses the Canonical Gospels as a template would also indicate to me that it can’t be anything close to a primary source. A primary source would not be dependant on secondary sources.
Diogenes, I see you are dodging my question. Why?
You seem to be highly tied up in an argument based entirely upon the precept of sola scriptura. Thus, it is legitimate to ask that you support the underlying assumption you make.
You assume that sola scriptura is the only valid basis upon which to form Christian doctrine. So, where in Scripture does it state that one is to only refer to Scripture when forming doctrine? In addition, where in Scripture does it even say what is to be in Scripture?
The “Immaculate Conception” is wrong. Period. mary was a sinner, her mother was a sinner, her mother’s mother was a sinner, all the way back to Adam.
Mary was not a god, she was a basic human female, probably between the age of 15-18 from a good Jewish home. Undoubtably, she was a good and devout person, but nothing more.
Mary also had other children:
(Mark 6:3 KJV) Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
(Mat 13:55-56 KJV) Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? {56} And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
St. James was the second son of Mary and Joseph. He was the leader of the pre St. paul church in Jerusalem after the ascension of Christ. He was murdered as a very old man.
Now back to Joseph. What was Joseph supposed to do the rest of his life, not have sex with his wife? I mean, God created sex, He made it pleasurable and loving between two married people. I doubt God was going to deny Joe the pleasures of his young wife as a price to raise Christ into manhood. God (the Christ) told mankind to be “fruitful and multiply”. I am 1000 percent positive that he wanted these two people to have babies. They did.
The Catholic faith believes on salvation by works when Christianity states that salvation is a free gift. “Good deeds are like dirty rags”, and the Bible states that good deeds have no worth in his eyes so that no man can boast he is better than another.
Mary is thought of in the Catholic religion as a person that calms the Christ, who is always angry. Wrong also.
Priests, nuns, monks, bishops and popes are not mentioned in the Bible.
Mary is an idol of worship in Roman catholism.
You’re good at spewing propaganda. But it’s obvious you know nothing of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Where is it “mentioned in the Bible” that one is to only do what is “in the Bible” and use no other source, WHATSOEVER.
Computers aren’t “mentioned in the Bible”. Why are you using one? The Bible wasn’t written in English, so you had better be reading it in the original languages. After all, translation wasn’t “mentioned in the Bible”. Produce a quote specifically where it states “Thou shalt translate this into English.” Don’t produce one that could be “interpreted” to mean that–for that interpretation would merely be a tradition of men, not “mentioned in the Bible”.
Dogface: Even in Christian traditions that look to more than scripture alone for the source of their religious dogma nevertheless consider scripture to be an important – perhaps the most important – source of information about the life and nature of Christ. And the simple fact is that most plausible reading of the Gospels indicates that Jesus had naturally-born brothers.
I have no problem with extrascriptural tradition filling in part of Christian doctrine. I have no problem with priests, nuns, monks, bishops and popes. I have no problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But your position goes farther than that – you aren’t just saying “we can look to more than Scripture for doctrine,” you’re also saying “we should ignore Scripture when it contradicts doctrines we hold by longstanding tradition.” That, I think, is a bridge too far.
But we needn’t even approach the matter with an eye toward Gospels as holy writ. We can also simply approach the matter with an eye towards the Gospels as historical record.
The bottom line, as far as I can see, is this: whatever the flaws of the Gospels as history, they are the closest thing we have to an actual historical record of the life and times of Jesus Christ. The Gospels claim Jesus had brothers, in a context that seems reasonably clear to mean naturally-born siblings. The burden thus seems to me to rest on proponents of perpetual virginity to explain why the historical record means something other than what it plainly says.
I never tried to make an argument for sola scriptura and I already said that I wasn’t making a judgement as to the general validity of the doctrine of perpetual virginity. I’m not saying it’s not valid, I’m only saying it’s not in the Bible. From the lens of pure Biblical criticism there is no reason to infer such a doctrine or to infer that Jesus could not have had siblings. My interest is in the Bible, per se, not in any broader doctrinal system. I’m an agnostic. I don’t have any doctrines.
Damn Hamsters ate my post. I’ll get them if it’s the last thing I do. Now I’ll sum up rather than try to repost a lengthy response.
There are numerous examples where a cursory reading would be wrong when it comes to the English word brother. The Latin word brother was used numerous times in the Vulgate when it really didn’t mean brother. Lot is called Abram’s brother, when he is in fact an nephew. Labrum is called Jacob’s brother, yet he was his uncle. There are latin words for uncle and nephew, yet the translators used “frater”. Why was there no confusion? Because the Jews had an oral tradition to fall back upon, which was later written down in the Talmud. They knew that Eleazar’s daughters married their cousins, even though the text said brotheren (the Hebrew has no word for cousin).
The same goes for the early church. While they had things in writing, the also had an oral tradition. That oral tradition held that Mary was a virgin all her life, and even though the texts say brothers in the Greek (just as the OT texts had in Latin), that they were not naturally born brothers, but related to Jesus in another way. This wasn’t questioned until the late 300’s, when Helvidius claimed that Jesus had naturally born brothers. However, Jerome argued against him using tradition and scripture. Jerome’s arguement was upheld and the perpetual virginity of Mary was held into and past the reformation. Luther argued Sola Scriptura, yet he still held the belief of the perptual virginity of Mary.
It’s a translation issue. Written in Latin brother was used, even when brother wasn’t meant. Same goes for the Greek. When these people said “James, brother of Jesus” in Aramaic and/or Hebrew, they had to use that word for lack of an alternative.
Can someone give me the English word for the German “gestalt”?
I still think you’ve got a context problem. Diogenes is exactly right on that point (and hoo-boy, there’s something I don’t get to say very often). His “Nick, Ted and Eddie” analogy is quite apt.
[sarcasm]Thank you for letting us know the will of God. I’m sure He needed a Prophet right about now.[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]Thank you for being so knowledgeable about Catholicism that you get to make pronouncements about it, while no Catholic on this board has said such a simila thing. We stand in awe of your divinely-inspiried knowledge.[/sarcasm]
But that relies on an English speaking context, and doesn’t explain so much as ignore the actual difficulties of translation and some years of oral transmission. To be perfectly honest about, much of the old testament was transmitted in the form of sermons and teachings. And note that much fo the Bible was and is written in a very artistic fashion, an almost twisted fashion. You or I simply wouldn’t even use that sort of grammer either, but it doesn’t mean that other people in other times didn’t.
Which is why I keep asking for the Aramaic or Hebrew word for cousin. There is none. His “Nick, Ted and Eddie” analogy would be fine if the people there had beed a word for the specific relationship between them. This is inherently lacking in the language.
Tell me, does the bible anywhere name anyone other than Jesus as a son of Mary? Does it anywhere call Jesus “a son of Mary” instead of “the son of Mary”? Where is the mention of these younger brothers and sisters when Jesus is in the temple at age 12?
Not at all. I was referring only to it’s context in Koine Greek, the language that it was written in. I do understand the the grammar and nuance of the original language. I don’t need a translation. Other meanings for adelphos would call for contextual indications to that effect. There are none in the quoted passages.
But not the language it was spoken in, hence the problem. If you translated anepsios back into Hebrew or Aramaic, you would have to use the word for brother as there is no direct equvilent. Does that make more sense?
I don’t know the Hebrew/Aramaic word for cousin so I can’t answer that. I don’t see how it matters since the text was written in Greek.
Tell me, does the bible anywhere name anyone other than Jesus as a son of Mary? Does it anywhere call Jesus “a son of Mary” instead of “the son of Mary”? Where is the mention of these younger brothers and sisters when Jesus is in the temple at age 12? **
[/QUOTE]
People were more likely to be identified by their relationship to a well-known person than to a lesser-known person. Jesus’ siblings, therefore, would be more likely to be identified as such than as the sons/daughters of Mary.
You distinction between “a” son and “the” son has no meaning in Greek. Koine has no indefinite article-- no word for “a.” It has only the definite article (“the”). All nouns are modified with “the.” You can’t say, “I’m going to eat a Big Mac” in Greek, you have to say, “I’m going to eat the Big Mac.” That’s just how the language is.
You’re into the realm of speculation now. All I’m doing is reading a text and telling you what it says.
if the authors of the Gospels had known that an original Aramaic word connoted a cousin, they could translated it that way in Greek. The fact that they didn’t sugests to me that they saw no such intention in the original Aramaic.
Does the same go for the transations in the Septuagint using the word “brother” instead of “cousin” or “nephew” or “uncle”? Why did the Septuagint use “brother” instead of the actual word? And why wouldn’t the writers of the NT do the same? Could the writers have transliterated instead of translated? That is why I stress the Hebrew/Aramaic lack of a word for cousin. The use of the word brother due to the absent of an equivalent would make sense.
Don’t get me wrong. I see the case you are making. To me, it smacks of sola scriptura. My issue is that the early church didn’t have an issue with Mary’s virginity, tradition held Jesus was the only child she had. Even with the stories written down, nobody read it as such or questioned it until 380 AD, ~350 years after Jesus’ death. And Helvidius’ arguement was almost not addressed by Jerome because it seemed nonsensical. When Jerome presented the evidence, Helvidius could not respond. Yet here we are, 1,600+ years later, far removed from the oral tradition prevalent at the time, trying to make the same arguement.
[hijack]
Translation is a funny business, especially with phrases and idioms.
In HS, I had a friend whose family came over from Italy. When calling his house, it was always fun to get his mom on the phone. She knew very little English, but she tried. I didn’t understand why she said some of the things she did until I took Italian in college. My favorite conversation was as follows
TB: Hello, is Luigi there?
Luigi’s Mom: Yes, but he making a shower.
TB: Excuse me?
LM: He makin’ a shower. He call you back. Who this?
TB: This is Bill
LM: Ok, I tell him
At times, he was “makin’ a football” too.
[/hijack]